One of the pragmatic observations during election season is that candidates campaign in poetry, then govern in prose.

A central question posed to five gubernatorial candidates invited to a recent governor’s candidate forum hosted by the Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma (ACCO) reinforced that idiom.

“One of the questions that we hit them with was how they felt about eliminating property taxes,” Sequoyah County District 3 Commissioner Jim Rogers reported at last week’s commissioners’ weekly meeting. Candidates attending the forum were Republicans Gentner Drummond, Chip Keating, Mike Mazzei and Charles McCall, along with Democrat Cyndi Munson.

“I’ve seen some of their campaign ads where they’re campaigning on doing away with [property taxes], but when you ask them face to face, ‘Well, we just can’t do that, because it eliminates your school funding for their building fund and portions of their general fund’,” Rogers said of the candidates’ response.

The elimination of property taxes would not just devastate school budgets. Without the millions of dollars that property taxes generate, county government and county services would grind to a halt.

“It eliminates county government altogether, and then your health departments, your libraries, your sheriff’s department’s gone, the jail’s gone, 911 is gone, election board’s gone, your emergency services are gone, fire departments — it will affect some of the fire departments around,” Rogers told fellow commissioners Ray Watts from District 1 and Beau Burlison from District 2.

“We try to make everybody understand that, yes, it’s called a property tax, but you’re actually paying for services. And if you eliminate those property taxes, you just eliminated those services,” Rogers continued. “That’s the biggest issue that ACCO has with State Question 843. It’s going to result in reduction of services or eliminating services altogether.”

Currently being considered in the Legislature, SQ 843 is an initiative petition aimed at eliminating ad valorem (or property) taxes on owner-occupied homesteads through a threeyear phase-in starting January 1, 2027. If the question makes the November 3 ballot and voters approve it, it would phase out taxes by 100% by 2029, though it does not replace the lost funding for local schools and counties.

“I know nobody likes paying property taxes,” Rogers acknowledged. “But if 843 passes, it would be the absolute largest funding decrease for the schools ever in the state of Oklahoma, and it’ll be the largest tax increase on commercial, industrial and possibly even ag — they’re saying that it may possibly affect ag, too.

Educating voters

“For this to be utilized for possibly what everybody thinks it’s being utilized for is a great campaign slogan to get reelected or get elected, but that’s nonsense,” Rogers said, figuratively stepping onto his soapbox. “Everybody needs to be well informed, every county elected official, every county employee, you guys need to be sharing this information with your neighbors, your constituents, let them know, ‘Hey, guys, we’re not opposed to doing away with property taxes, they just don’t have an answer for how they’re going to fund this once they take it away. You no longer have those different areas that service our community.’ I mean, road maintenance is gone. It’s just a big deal this year. Hopefully they’ll figure things out.”

Eliminating property taxes is not a new concept. Neither is a proposal to reduce the percentages paid on the fair cash values on homesteads and agricultural land. But the hot topic has become even hotter in 2026.

“When I sat on this forum — which I represented the county commissioners, there were four of us on this panel — one of the questions that I asked was, ‘Last year, how many different legislations were submitted that affected ad valorem?’ and it was like 20 something,” Rogers said. “This year, it was almost 80. And I asked, ‘Do you think that contributes to this being an election year?’ It’s a great campaign slogan, and they said, ‘100%, absolutely.’

“They’re going to do something here. I don’t know exactly what they’re going to do. I just hope they have a great understanding on how this could affect not just individual counties, but the state as a whole,” Rogers said of the legislators considering the state’s financial future. “And they asked me, personally, ‘How would this affect your county?’ I said, ‘Well, any reduction is going to result in a reduction of services that we provide, or possibly eliminating them all together.’ The sad part of it is, and the bigger picture, when you eliminate all of these jobs, you just hurt the economy, too.

“I think the best understanding on this is, yes, it’s called property taxes, but you need to understand, those taxes pay for services. If you no longer need those services, then you do away with it,” Rogers said. “But it’s no different than you paying an electric bill each month, or a water bill, or car payment, anything of that sort. If you want those, if you need those necessities, you have to pay for them. They’re not free.”

While eliminating property taxes is the hot topic, Rogers said one of the bills still being debated is one that lowers the fair cash values on homesteads and agricultural land from a 5% increase to 3% increase, and from 3% to 1%. County Assessor Brandy Allen said the 3% to 1% option would result in a $9.5 million decrease in net value — not ideal, but better than the larger increase.

Rogers said ACCO is proposing adjustments from 5% to 4%, and 3% to 2%.

“One of the things I explained to them was how that would affect us. We got $2.5 million last year in ad valorem taxes. Our budget was $5.4 million. We’re making up over half of that just to keep from putting that back on the taxpayers’ back,” Rogers said. “So, yeah, it would be very detrimental to us. When you’re not getting what you need to meet the budget right now anyway, any cut’s going to affect us.”

An alternative culprit

While property taxes get a bad rap, Rogers said there’s a culprit that’s doesn’t get enough blame.

“I think the big thing that we really need to look at are the insurance rates, that’s what they need to look at more so than property taxes,” Rogers said.

Rogers indicted insurance rates after being shown a post by Muskogee County Assessor Ron Dean — “This guy’s a guru; I mean, he’s sharp at this stuff,” Rogers said — comparing the average ad valorem tax for Oklahoma County at $2,155, and the average annual homeowners insurance for Oklahoma County at $9,770.

“Your escrows are not going up because of property taxes, they’re going up because of your insurance,” Rogers claimed. “But for some reason, they don’t want to address that. I don’t know what the issue is there, but something has to be done. Because, when you look at the average ad valorem for Oklahoma County is $2,155 and the average insurance was almost $10,000, that’s five times.”

Allen pointed out that ad valorem looks at replacement costs new, less the depreciation, but insurance does not.

“They look at replacement cost period. They look at no depreciation whatsoever,” Allen said of insurance actuaries. “And it doesn’t matter how old your house is. It can be 100 years old. But they go by square footage, and what it would cost to replace it.”

Rogers said the Oklahoma Senior Valuation Limitation Program, or senior freeze, is also under consideration. A current bill before the Legislature would eliminate the income threshold, allowing senior freeze eligibility to be based primarily on age and residency, rather than gross household income as it is currently.

“They’re looking at senior freezes, which I don’t have a problem with helping the seniors. They’re on fixed incomes, retirement age. And they’re even looking at a cap on taxes,” Rogers told his colleagues.